If you don’t believe that computer models can accurately simulate and predict physical conditions even in situations that humans haven’t already directly experienced, then you must be absolutely shocked, SHOCKED at the fact that NASA managed to successfully land unmanned rovers on Mars.
“They didn’t actually go to Mars and experiment with landing techniques there, they just plugged data into a computer! It’s all a hoax, I tells ya! Mars missions are a goddamn religion!” [/FXMastermind"Cognitive"Processes]
Please refute my statement in a proper manner.
Merely gainsaying me makes you look somewhat incapable of actually defending your thesis (whatever that is.)
Do you imagine that the PPM of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] has not, in fact, increased from 280 to 385 since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? If not, please present supporting facts that contradict this.
Excuse me, ‘gentlemen’, but you are the ones who are attempting (ever so amusingly) to refute the commonly accepted climate model. I suggest you begin to support your alternate position before even pretending that what has been presented to you by the sane members of this thread is anything other than the commonly accepted position of the vast majority of climate scientists.
The average global temperature is gradually increasing. The increase is almost certainly the result of the increase in greenhouse gases that resulted from the increase in fossil fuel consumption since the Industrial Revolution. There are many effects of this increase in average global temperature and CO[sub]2[/sub] content. The effects of increased average global temperature include greater energy in weather systems leading to larger snowstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, and floods. The effects of increased CO[sub]2[/sub] content lead to ocean acidification and decreased carbonate ionization which leads to stressful conditions for many species of sea-life including corals, plankton and shellfish.
Would you care to refute any of this?
I daresay you will pretend that this is not your responsibility even though the data and mechanisms involved in this set of hypotheses is simple enough that even mentally challenged individuals should be able to understand them. I also posit that the reason why you and your chum find it amusing to post in this thread has very little to do with the subject at hand and much more with your ability to arouse a sense of outrage from the people here who actually think for a living.
That is an impossible statement. Nobody has presented " the commonly accepted climate model", and in fact, the only thing close to a theory was presented by my humble self, after it became clear none of the strident voices protesting my presentation of extreme cold as global warming, were capable of such a simple feat.
Speaking of, Boston just broke a very old record. Colder than ever measured before on September 17, while record snow is falling in South America.
I have no trouble explaining exactly what is wrong with " the commonly accepted climate model", just as soon as anyone post a link to it, or presents it here.
That nobody has, that is just icing on the comedy cake.
Of course if increasing CO2 leads to coral death, we would see quite simply, an experiment where the CO2 levels in salt water are increased, and we would watch the coral die. Now that would be a good scientific way to show people the danger. (and certainly there are real dangers)
But instead we get a computer model claiming the coral will dissolve, which is pretty much the nonsense we get rather than actual science.
Fap fap fap fap fap…
Watching you beat off, FXMasterbater, while Brazilnut licks your ass is really grossing me out. You guys should start a blog or something. You know, get a fucking room.
It’s just stupid; let’s say there is only a 5% chance the vast majority of scientists are right about climate change it behooves us to do something. We should institute a massive switch to nuclear power, it is a much safer and cleaner technology anyway. Even if they are wrong, we would be much better off wih nuclear power plants in every city than breathing petroleum smog. Fukishima showed that the technology is safe; one of the largest earthquakes and tsunamis in history and no one died.
If there was a trend for tornadoes, intensity or frequency, since 1995, it would make no sense. Surface temperatures show a flat or cooling trend, with a pronounced cooling trend since 2002. If warming equated with more/stronger tornadoes, it would still mean we should see no recent increase.
I’m not arguing tornadoes and temperatures, since it’s a hypothetical. I’m pointing out if there was a connection, we should see no increasing trend, since NH surface temperatures are not increasing.
Before the inevitable occurs, there is a long term warming trend, but no recent increase. In fact, large areas of the NH are showing cooling trends for the boreal winter. With increasing snow depth and snow cover for large areas.
Be all that as it may, thousands of people die each year from respiratory diseases brought on by burning petroleum. Nuclear is safe, clean, and effective. Forget about climate change, these reasons should be enough.
It’s the set of features shared by the main Global Climate Models (GCMs) that climate scientists use in research. AFAIK, the most scientifically sophisticated of the readily available discussions of these features is in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). The most user-friendly of them is probably Columbia’s EdGCM (Educational Global Climate Modeling) software project.
Lol. i.e. you have no actual response on the substance of the point in question so you will criticize me and Fx for agreeing with each other on that point.
Of course people on the warmist side never express agreement with each other on any points.
